Mark Kirk

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. So 71 percent are dropped, but a payment is still made because it's a settlement, and that's going to drive up insurance rates anyway.

Mr. KIRK. But does it mean though that doctors in Connecticut were 300 percent worse 2 years later?

Mr. KIRK. I am going to keep this on the positive side because what we're doing is we're putting together a positive alternative. And one of the other reforms that we will be outlining is to dramatically expand the number of Americans who can have a health savings account, very much like an IRA, so that they can save, especially in their younger, more healthy years, in a tax deferred account that they will use to make up for their deductible expenses and their health insurance. Over time, as with our IRAs, an account balance will build up. And then, if each of us reaches the age of Medicare, at 65, with a balance in that account, that account either can become part of our retirement plan or eventually a part of our estate to our children. This is a much more flexible way of providing health care and, more importantly, it's owned by you, not by a government bureaucracy. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, tonight, what we would like to talk about is a new and positive medical reform agenda as Congress prepares to debate health care in the United States. I want to focus this discussion on what we should be for--a bipartisan and centrist agenda for the United States--and compare our country to plans in other countries to make sure that we take the best of all medical care around the world but don't replicate some of the problems that we see both here and abroad. When we look at a comprehensive reform agenda that would receive widespread support both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, we basically unify around eight major themes. First, we want to make sure that we guarantee that medical decisions are kept in the hands of patients and their doctors and not a new government bureaucracy. Second, we want to lower the cost of insurance to make sure that the competitive advantage that the United States could enjoy would be realized, and that also individual costs for all American families are lowered. We want to increase the number of Americans who have health insurance to make sure that more and more families have the peace of mind that they need to protect their family incomes, their health, and most importantly, their lives. We want to allow Americans to keep the insurance they like because we know that over 80 percent of Americans--and especially voters--report that they are either satisfied or extremely satisfied with the health insurance plan they have. And we want to make sure that we replicate the doctor's principle, that first we should do no harm. And in the Congress, on health care policy, we should follow that advice. Fifth, we would like to improve quality and accountability and make sure that especially the cost of defensive medicine is reduced and that we know exactly what we are doing with regard to health care outcomes to make sure that we are maximizing the treatment and cures provided when a patient presents in a health care facility. We want to increase personal responsibility, especially for many of the decisions Americans are making because we know that if they lose weight, quit smoking, and stop drinking, their health care will improve dramatically. And, finally, we want to lower demand for more Federal borrowing at a time when the United States is already reporting that it will borrow $1.8 trillion this year. It is difficult to argue that we should turn every family's health care over to the Federal Government, an institution which is already, as the President says, ``out of money.'' When we look at health care across the world, we see that the percentage of patients who wait more than 2 months to see a specialist is not a dramatic issue in the United States, but this is front-page news in both Canada and the United Kingdom. According to the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Sicker Adults, they report that about 10 percent of Americans wait more than 2 months to see a specialist, but one-third of Britons do, and approaching half of Canadians wait a long time for health care. We know that health care delayed is health care denied. And imagine-- especially if the specialist that you need is an oncologist, someone who treats cancer--what a 42-week wait would be as compared to what we see in the United States. Secondly, we know from asking Americans, What is the most important thing you would like to see in health care?, they say lowering the cost of their health insurance. Many in this body also say the number one priority is to expand health care coverage so that Americans who do not have health insurance can get it. I would say those two goals are very important, but the most important goal of health care is to determine whether you live or die, to make sure that, especially if you are facing health care challenges of the most severe degree, you have the greatest chance for you or a member of your family to survive. This is most clear in the case of cancer. When you or I or a member of our family gets that terrible diagnosis from a doctor that you will be fighting cancer, the question is often asked, How much time do I have? Will I be able to survive? When we look at The Lancet, Britain's number one medical journal, they did a ground- breaking study of cancer survival rates across Europe, Canada, and the United States and found that you are more likely to survive in the United States than you are in especially European countries. They looked at a number of different cancers. For example, prostate cancer: a 78 percent survival rate in Europe--which is fairly good--but a 99 percent survival rate if found in the United States. Bladder cancer: only 66 percent of Europeans survive bladder cancer, 81 percent of Americans. Breast cancer: 79 percent of Europeans will survive breast cancer, but 90 percent of Americans. And uterine cancer: 78 percent of Europeans will survive, but 82 percent of Americans. Why is it that Americans are doing so much better against cancer than Europeans? Part of it is because in Canada and Europe advanced oncology medicines to fight cancer are restricted; and especially imagery to find cancer, either through x rays, MRIs or CAT scans, are much more available in the United States to find cancer, especially at its earlier stage, which means that Americans, bottom line, have a greater chance of surviving cancer than Europeans. When we look at 5-year survival rates, overall the picture is also stark. Women fighting cancer have a 63 percent chance of surviving if they are treated in the United States. That survival rate drops to just 56 percent in Europe. For men, the difference is even starker. Sixty- six percent of American men will survive a cancer diagnosis, only 47 percent of European men. Bottom line, once again we see, across both men and women, you are much more likely to survive cancer in the United States than in European countries. And much of the reason why is because in countries in which the government controls more of the health care sector, they restrict access to oncology medicine and to imagery. That means that cancer is found later and is fought with less aggressive drugs, meaning that Europeans will die at a higher rate than Americans. When we look at high-tech medical procedures in Britain, Canada, and the United States, many people would say that health care costs are derived by too much access to high-tech medical care. But what we see here is that survival rates are higher in the United States, meaning high-tech is good. And the chance of your family member surviving improves when you have access to oncology medicine and MRIs. We see the differences between Britain, Canada, and the United States most clearly here where Britain, who has had the longest record of socialized government-controlled medicine, has very low rates of providing dialysis care as opposed to the United States. In coronary bypass, we see even Canadian rates are much lower. And especially in coronary angioplasty, the United States far outdistances countries with socialized medicine, leading to higher survival rates and better outcomes for Americans over patients who face socialized medicine. When we look at quality outcomes, this is another study showing the amount of time that you have to wait to see a specialist doctor. In this Commonwealth study, they rated the percentage of people that had to wait more than 4 weeks to see a specialist doctor. This is not a critical issue in the United States, but once again, front page news in the U.K. where we see the rate of patients that have to wait and, therefore, are denied care is three times the rate of the U.S. rate in Canada and in the United Kingdom as opposed to the U.S. And only Germany has a level somewhat equaling the U.S. record of getting you to see the specialist you need when you need to see it without a wait. This is another chart which shows patients having very long waits. We see that in the United States, only 8 percent of Americans have to wait more than 4 months to see a key specialist, but 41 percent of people in Britain. Imagine getting a diagnosis of cancer, knowing that it is in your body, and being told that you had to wait more than 4 months before you could even see the specialist that you need to survive. This is why we are quite worried about the restrictions that would be caused and denial of care in a socialized system. Remember also that since the U.S. Government is $1.8 trillion in debt just this year, if you give control of your health care to the government and the government is already out of money, how will it try to save money to rectify the deficit? If it's in control of your health care, it may do what the Canadians and Britons do, which is control your access to care. I am very happy to be joined by my co-Chair of The Tuesday Group, Congressman Dent from Pennsylvania, who has been a leader on health care and has engaged in a number of these international comparisons.

Mr. KIRK. I think one of the key lessons that we want is, we want Americans to have health insurance as good as a Congressman, but we don't want them to have to call their Congressman to get good health care. One of the things that we've also seen is that the United States really stands out in a couple of areas that drive health care costs up. We have very little to no Federal lawsuit reform in the United States for health care, meaning that defensive medicine is the practice of the day in our country as opposed to other countries because doctors are so likely to be sued. Another is that, yes, Americans generally have a higher degree of obesity as compared to other countries. And so the Congress and the President, on a bipartisan basis I think, will have a lot of common ground in working and encouraging a reduction in weight by Americans because this will lower health care costs. One of our key experts on how lawsuits drive health care costs up is our colleague from Pennsylvania as well, Congressman Dent.

Mr. KIRK. I think the gentleman's point is well taken, especially in comparing two States and the average premium for health care in these two States. In New Jersey, the average premium totals over $6,000 per person, a State that has very little lawsuit reform; and a number of the other reforms that we are talking about in our reform bill that we will be outlining next Tuesday from the GOP centrists are not there in New Jersey. In California, a number of the successful reforms that we've put forward are there; and the average cost of our premium is just $1,885, meaning that if you back the kind of reforms that will be in the outline bill that we put forward next Tuesday, you can drop the cost of health care by thousands of dollars per patient.

Mr. KIRK. When we're looking at preventive care, which is so essential, in many countries with government-controlled systems, because these systems are generally out of money, as governments generally are, they have restricted access to preventive care. So particularly in a Pap smear and a mammogram, two essential procedures in finding cancer in women early, we see that 89 percent of American women will have had a Pap smear within the last 3 years, but only 77 percent of Britons. In a mammogram as well, American women are 86 percent, whereas women in the United Kingdom are 77 percent. All of these major industrialized powers, allies of the United States, have much lower access to care, even though they have government systems.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. I thank the chairman. I want to praise the chairman and his team for putting together a bipartisan bill regarding our assistance to Pakistan. This is a very critical region for the United States and assistance is authorized under this legislation, and necessary. But as was stated before, when Colin Powell called the President of Pakistan right after September 11, he offered a choice: you're either with us or against us. And President Musharraf picked well. Under that arrangement, we did provide $12 billion to Pakistan but largely without strings attached. And the Pakistani effort against the militants, especially in the frontier autonomous region, was initially aggressive but then petered out. The United States was providing $16 million a month to the Pakistani military but after 2005 was receiving little benefit. Under the new government, that is, unquestionably, a democratic government, I think we have a more stable partner to deal with in the war on terror, specifically in what the Pentagon would call the ``al Qaeda core.'' With this new government really representing the essence of the Pakistani middle class, we now take on their true aspirations in which the central issue for the long term is not nuclear competition with India, but how quickly Pakistan is falling behind India's rising economic growth. In that view, then, a bunch of radicals ruining the economic and business climate of Pakistan is a mortal danger to the future income of Pakistanis. On that basis, a war on terror is solidly grounded in democracy, in the Pakistani middle class, and the joint interest to the United States. But this bill reflects what we have learned over the last 5 years, that strings should be attached, that benchmarks should be established, that we should have accountability in that very difficult part of the world. I will also praise this bill because it is probably the only free trade bill this Congress will adopt, and it represents a true bipartisan will that will help add to the employment of Pakistan and stability of that country.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KIRK. Madam Chair, I have an amendment on the roll.

Mr. KIRK. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their bipartisan work on this, for a good underlying bill, in my view, as well. This amendment will assist in our fight against terrorism across the globe, especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Currently, the terrorist rewards program run by the State Department assists in our hunt for terrorists by promising a cash reward or other type of assistance for information leading to the arrest of some of the world's most deadly terrorists. The Rewards for Justice Program, established by the 1984 Act to Combat International Terrorism, has now paid over $77 million to more than 50 people who have provided credible information to put terrorists behind bars and prevent acts of terrorism. As a staff member, I helped write the amendments that President Clinton asked for when we wanted to offer rewards for persons indicted for war crimes, for example, in the former Yugoslavia. We also passed legislation under Chairman Hyde that loosened up this program so that we could provide more than cash assistance, more meaningful assistance to farmers and other people who may not be able to read in very rural parts of Central Asia. The program has been the key to success in apprehending people, including Mir Amal Kansi, a terrorist who murdered two CIA employees and injured three others in his 1993 rampage outside of CIA headquarters in Virginia. The program was also important in nailing Ramzi Yousef, convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; Uday and Qusay Hussein, the two murderous Hussein brothers; Khadaffy Janjalani and Abu Solaiman, two high-ranking members of Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines; Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted on January 31, 2001, for the murder of 270 people on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie; Hamsiraji Marusi Sali, the leader of the ASG; Muhsin Khadr al-Khafaji, a member of Saddam Hussein's top Ba'ath Party leadership; Iraqi Khamis Sirhan al-Muhammad, a former official military commander; and Muhammad Zimam Abd al-Razzaq al-Sadun, number 41 on the Iraqi ``top 55'' wanted list. Under current law, though, the United States may not pay an award to an officer or employee of another government. I have traveled to Pakistan in each of the last 4 years where I have met a number of government officials, and at the strong suggestion of the fairly poorly paid, especially IB, intelligence bureaus, I believe the Secretary of State should be allowed to pay such a reward especially if it has to do with nailing the greatest terrorists. If there is anyone anywhere working for anyone who has information related to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri, we should be doing everything possible to elicit that information. As Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, General Petraeus, and Ambassador Holbrooke execute the President's new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, we should do everything we can to develop a complete picture of where the al Qaeda and Taliban leadership is hiding. This amendment provides our key State Department and intelligence officials with every possible tool that they could have to make sure they can offer a reward even if that person, for example, works for the Pakistani IB bureau. In the last Congress, the House overwhelmingly passed this amendment 419-1, but it did not pass the Senate, which is why I offer it today. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIRK. I appreciate the chairman's work. I also appreciate David Fite's work on this because we were together when we first saw how this restriction could impede the hunt for the two top al Qaeda terrorists-- Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden. For a poorly paid official--and there are many who are patriotic, good servants in Afghanistan and in Pakistan especially--we ought to be able to offer this reward. This will significantly incentivize the hunt for some of the people who have killed most of the Americans. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, on May 19, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change released a draft negotiating text. The draft, in part, calls for the removal of ``barriers to development and transfer of technologies from developed to developing country Parties arising from the intellectual property rights protection including compulsory licensing for specific patented technologies.'' The American people need to know that those were code words, like ``compulsory licensing'' and ``technology transfer,'' that really mean allowing other countries to steal the American patents, copyrights and trademarks for anything related to climate change, efficiency or energy under the draft climate change treaty. If the United States agrees to a climate change treaty that allows developing countries to seize U.S. intellectual property in this area, economic consequences for green-collar jobs would be devastated. American inventors now hold 50 percent of the world's patents on clean energy, 52 percent of the patents on fuel cells, nearly half of the world's wind patents, 46 percent of the world's solar patents, and 40 percent of the world's patents in the hybrid-electric vehicle market. By 2030, industries with green-collar jobs could provide up to 40 million American jobs, and they could generate up to $4.5 trillion in annual revenue; but none of that would happen if a climate change treaty specifically allowed compulsory licensing so that Chinese competitors, for example, or European opposition could simply steal the intellectual property of a key U.S. green-collar manufacturer. Now, one leading American innovator told me, If we lose intellectual property rights, capital markets die. This industry needs all of the innovation we can muster to deliver on what the world and on what the U.S. needs. Shorting that will guarantee no new investments or breakthroughs for green-collar jobs. Now, this innovator was none other than Gregg Patterson, the CEO of PV Powered--America's largest manufacturer of solar power inverter technology. Many of us remember this photo when then Presidential candidate, Senator Obama, visited Mr. Patterson last year, promising future green jobs and a green economy at his factory. Mr. Chairman, these jobs will not be created if we do not protect the intellectual property of American inventors and manufacturers. So far, the State Department has been very silent on this issue, but countries like China and India now put it at the top of their lists for negotiations in Copenhagen to ``relax intellectual property rights.'' That means to steal the innovations of Americans in green-collar areas. This amendment lays down a marker. It says, if Copenhagen produces a treaty that allows the theft of U.S. intellectual property under compulsory licensing or under the weakening of IPR, the U.S. will not sign on. Now, our Larsen-Kirk amendment is endorsed by the Solar Energy Industries Association, by the National Hydrogen Association, by the National Association of Manufacturers, and by the Chamber of Commerce. I really want to thank Chairman Berman, Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, and Chairman Rangel for supporting this very commonsense piece of legislation. I yield back.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague Marsha Blackburn.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, on Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency submitted a report on the Iranian nuclear program. After producing low-enriched uranium at a rate of 40 kilograms per month over a 21-month period, Iran has now increased its stockpile by 60 percent in just the last 6 months, doubling its rate to over 80 kilograms per month. With 5,000 centrifuges now active, Iran is producing enough enriched uranium to produce two nuclear weapons per year, one for them, one for Hezbollah. The IAEA now reports that Iran has denied inspectors access to the Arak heavy water reactor since August of 2008, where we suspect they will try to produce plutonium. Mr. Moussavi, the leading candidate for President in Iran, told Der Spiegel, I will not suspend uranium enrichment. On April 13 he said to the Financial Times, No one will stop suspension. No matter who wins the Iranian elections on Friday, we know that the production of fissile material useful in this oil-producing country only for nuclear weapons is accelerating.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call on Egypt to demonstrate that it is a force for tolerance in the Arab world by releasing Kareem Amer from prison. A young human rights activist, Kareem Amer, was sentenced in February of 2007 to rot in prison for 4 years based solely on what he wrote on his blog. He is the first blogger of the Arab world to be jailed completely for his Internet comments. And his only crime was criticizing extremists who persecute women and minorities. We have a unique opportunity to right this injustice. President Obama should call for the release of Kareem to protect the free speech of all of us on the Internet. The Egyptian Government is heavily subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. Americans are going through tough times and would not be happy supporting a regime that set a precedent that put the first blogger in jail solely for promoting tolerance. Egypt should not stand out as a repressive regime that stifles Internet speech. That is why Kareem Amer should be released from prison before the President leaves Egypt.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 90th birthday of Ira Weinstein. For almost 60 years Ira has been a resident of Illinois' 10th District, and currently lives in Glencoe, IL. We also take this time to commemorate Ira, a WWII hero and an ex-POW for his bravery and service to his country. Born in Chicago in 1919 to a family of modest means, Mr. Weinstein found his calling in advertising when he worked for his high school newspaper. Unfortunately, his career aspirations were soon interrupted by the attack on Pearl Harbor and America's entrance into World War II. In 1942, just before completing his training as a bombardier- navigator, he married Norma Randall, a marriage that would last until her death in 1995. While overseas, Ira was based with the 702nd Squadron in the 445th Bomb Group of the famed 8th Air Force. He flew two dozen harrowing missions, each time taking over the piloting duties of the massive B-24 Liberator. Trying to close out his quota of missions in order to go back home to his new bride, he traded in his pass for the Jewish High Holidays to complete one more mission. What was supposed to be a routine-mission became the ill-fated Kassel mission--the greatest single loss of men during the European air war. On September 27, 1944, his B-24 was critically damaged by an enemy attack forcing him to evacuate the bombardier's compartment while the aircraft was burning, falling to the ground in a dizzying flat spin. After a failed attempt, he bailed out with little time to spare. Landing safely in the tree line, Ira watched the locals pull his copilot out of the wreckage and pitchfork the man to death. After 6 days of evading capture, Mr. Weinstein was forced to turn himself in to local authorities in Germany. For the better part of the following year, he was held prisoner in Stalag Luft I in Barth, Germany, enduring brutal and unthinkable conditions. On May 11, 1945, the camp was liberated and for his heroism Ira was awarded several medals, including the Purple Heart and the distinguished French Croix de Guerre. Returning to Chicago, Mr. Weinstein took over a small advertising agency and grew it into a nationally known direct marketing firm. To those close to him, Ira was indefatigable, inquisitive, and inspiring, a man of unquestioned integrity, a loving father to two daughters, Laura and Terri, a proud grandfather, a cherished husband and a successful businessman acknowledged by his peers as a pioneer in his field. Today, Ira is retired and remarried to Mary Gandelman, with whom he continues to travel the globe. On June 10, we pause to celebrate the 90th birthday of Ira Weinstein. I commend Ira for his hard work and determination throughout some of the most challenging moments in American history. I hope that his story will never be forgotten.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Terrence L. Barnich. Terry served as Chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) in the early nineties, and spent the last two years as Deputy Director of the Iraq Transition Assistance Office in Baghdad. Terry died on Memorial Day after his convoy was hit by a roadside bomb on the outskirts of Fallujah. Terry was appointed Chairman of the ICC by Gov. Jim Thompson in 1989, serving for three years before joining the private sector. In 2007 he took a leave of absence from his job as CEO of Paradigm Resources Group to spend a year working with the State Department in Baghdad. After that year, Terry volunteered to stay in Iraq to continue his work helping the Iraqis build modern public utility systems. He embodied the American commitment to the people of Iraq, and his work was helping us fulfill that commitment. Terry died after inspecting a new wastewater treatment facility that will provide essential services to Fallujah and Anbar Province. His patriotism and love of his work are evident in a quote he gave a Chicago newspaper shortly after he arrived in Baghdad. He said: ``To those back home who say the Iraqi experience has made the Iraqis unready or incapable for democracy, I say come work with me. I deal with Iraqis who daily brave physical hardship, violence and threats of violence to make their contribution to building a government that deserves the consent of the governed.'' Funeral services were held today in Chicago, and I hope my colleagues will join me in sending our condolences to Terry's family as we remember his dedication to public service.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, we are running out of other people's money. We borrowed $1 trillion from China, and their leaders are reluctant to lend more. In response, the Federal Reserve has begun electronically printing dollars to cover new debts. Chinese leaders told me that this was unconventional and troubling. They worry that America will try to repay her debts with newly printed dollars. The Fed so far this year has printed $130 billion that it does not have. Rating agencies have already cut Britain's AAA credit rating and warned we are next. Later this week I will ask the Fed to stop printing money to buy U.S. debt. Unless we stop, the enemy of the middle class and seniors-- inflation--will come back to hurt our recovery.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, the dollars in your wallet are about to become less valuable, a lot less valuable. Over the last several months, the Federal Reserve has been lending money to the Federal Government using ``monetized'' assets. That's Washington-speak for printing money we do not have. To date, the Fed has printed over $130 billion by just running a virtual electronic printing press on its balance sheet. Most Americans do not know this is happening. Most Chinese do. The dollar-printing policy of Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Geithner should worry every American. High interest rates and inflation are the enemy of homeowners with a mortgage and senior citizens on a fixed income. Nothing sinks a middle class faster than inflation. Concern for the dollar is also front page news in China. China's leaders approved over $1 trillion in lending to the U.S. And if the Fed continues printing money, then China's dollar-denominated loans will lose considerable value. As co-chair of the China Working Group, I led a mission to China, where I heard about deep concern in China. It's a concern that we should all listen to for our own sakes, as well as our international trade.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today to introduce the Medical Rights Act of 2009 that will protect the doctor- patient relationship, the integrity of the medical profession and the right of Americans to choose the care they deem appropriate without federal delay or restriction. The President outlined three principles for health care reform--lower costs, choice and access. I support these goals. To back them, the President should endorse the Medical Rights Act. Our legislation is founded on this: Congress should make no law to block the decisions that American patients make with their doctor. If patients are our prime focus, their rights should be protected in law. We can look to Great Britain and Canada to show us how government takeover of health care puts Congress, then the government in charge of your health care decisions, allowing them to decide what treatments you should or should not have. While over 60 percent of Americans are actually satisfied with their health care plan, only 55 percent of Canadian seniors are satisfied. The starkest difference in care appears when you are sickest. In Britain, government hospitals maintain nine intensive care unit beds per 100,000 people. In America, we have three times that number at 31 per 100,000. In sum, Britain has less than two doctors per 1,000 people, ranking it next to Mexico and Turkey. If we do not enact the Medical Rights Act, patients will be at risk when government denies care, as they routinely do in Canada and Great Britain. Once denied government care, many Canadians find doctors in the U.S. If Congress orders the government to take over America's health care, where can we drive once care is denied by a new government health care system? To prevent this nightmare, Congress should pass the Medical Rights Act. We need to promote patient-centered health care reform, where every American has access to the care they need, when they need it. It is not the role of the federal government to decide the type of care a patient should have but the role of doctors and medical professionals. I urge my colleagues to support the Medical Rights Act to stop the federal government from taking control over decisions made by you and your doctor.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, many are concerned about waiting lines that would come with a government health care program, and their fears are well-founded. Canada and Europe restrict care for patients, especially the elderly. The President has outlined three principles for his bill: lower cost, choice and access. I support these goals; and to back them, the President should also endorse the Medical Rights Act. Congressman Dent and I will introduce the Medical Rights Act tomorrow. Our legislation is founded on this: The Congress should make no law that blocks the decisions of American patients made with their doctor. If patients are our prime focus, then their rights should be protected in law. If we do not enact the Medical Rights Act, patients will be at risk when the government denies care, as routinely happens in Canada. Once denied government care, many Canadians find doctors in America. If Congress orders the government to take over America's health care system, then where will we be able to drive once denied from a government health care system? To prevent the mistakes of Canada and Britain, Congress should enact the Medical Rights Act.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.